Permanently remove a Productboard note by UUID. Use it to clean up obsolete or duplicate notes; deletion is irreversible, so verify the ID first.
Permanently delete a Productboard note. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Note UUID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important trait — the operation is permanent and irreversible — but says nothing about required permissions, what happens to attached relationships or comments, or error behavior when the note is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical irreversibility constraint. No filler text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive, irrecoverable tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential warning but omits side effects (relationships, comments, customer links) and failure modes. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as the note UUID in the schema. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a Productboard note'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like delete_entity or delete_note_relationship by naming the target resource. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, but the resource noun makes intent unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as update_note or delete_note_relationship, nor any stated prerequisites. The irreversibility warning hints at caution but does not tell the agent when use is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.